Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

SCOTUS ONLY RULES ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS and not necessarily the legal substrate below it.

They rule on both. They granted cert to both sides of the Collins case:

1) To the plaintiffs on the Constitutional side because the Fifth Circuit en banc panel found the FHFA director's removal clause to be unconstitutional but gave no remedy beyond merely altering that clause to at will removal.
2) To the defendants on the APA side (not a constitutional claim) because there was a circuit split: the Fifth Circuit said that the NWS was ultra vires (Collins) while the Eighth said it was not (Bhatti).

Yes of course the government can break the law in acting in the public interest. But the remedy must be determined in a lower court if it is not a constitutional matter in their consideration.

The NWS itself was not found to be a violation of the law at all by the Supreme Court, precisely because FHFA is allowed to act in the best interests of itself and by extension the public it serves. The remedy is still working its way through the courts, but so far the district court and merit panel in the Fifth Circuit have both ruled that no retrospective remedy is available to shareholders (the Supreme Court already closed the door on prospective relief).

However, this remedy has nothing to do with the Fairholme case in Lamberth's court. That's an entirely separate claim (implied covenant) and this case hasn't gone to the Supreme Court at all.